Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

[yankee451]

Hoo hoo, molten steel.

12 Threads on the subject:

Molten Steel VS Molten metal at GZ....
So there was melted steel
Cotton melts steel!
Today's XKCD: Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel
Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel
Merged: Molten metal observations
Truthers: Why didn't the Hindenburg's steel melt?
Is a Kerosene blaze hot enough to melt steel?
Split Thread: Molten steel at the WTC towers
Motlen Steel - Continuation
Molten Steel
Melting steel

Amount of material analyzed in a lab and determined to be molten steel: 0

Yep, that's the point. It's a bunch of hogwash - a rumor started by the authorities over here, but denied by the authorities over there, but confusing everyone in between. Divide and conquer you know.

 

[LSSBB]

Yep, that's the point. It's a bunch of hogwash - a rumor started by the authorities over here, but denied by the authorities over there, but confusing everyone in between. Divide and conquer you know.

Authorities, or untrained eyewitnesses? Name the authorities who "started" these rumors.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I keep saying this,
Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625.

Oystein has kindly provided a summary of the article here.
If you want a full copy of the paper, send me your e-mail and I will send it to you.

 

[fess]

The trusses went wall to core.

The jet's fuselage was about 17 feet wide and after the cockpit was creamed against the steel the hollow tube of the fuselage and it's contents was hardly a battering ram, and even if it was it was only 17 feet wide. And hollow.

So not only does the hollow fuselage damage the dense steel (is it the air pressure inside the cabin that gives it density?), it also damages an area twice its diameter and wipes out three acres of concrete, even thought it woudn't have touched most of the trusses.

There are no bodies hanging in the hole, no desks piled up, no filing cabinets or cubicles, no doors or office partitions, or any window coverings visible in the hole. Nothing but building and nothing that could be identified as a truss or a concrete floor slab.

It's remarkable how powerful your jet is, truly. It's amazing we spend a million dollars a pop on missiles when just a few 767s could have wiped out Tripoli.

The trusses? Yes they did go from the exterior “wall” to the core. And you seem to forget that they were lightweight trusses. And how were they anchored?

Still trying to hold onto the idea that the fuselage of an airliner is hollow? You didn’t learn much from your bush pilot buddies did you?

You do realize that it took 1/3rd of a second for the aircraft to obliterate the area where it impacted don’t you? That’s simple math that even you should be able to do. But yet you think desks should be piled up against the wall, and maybe a few employees sitting around having coffee. And you have the nerve to call other people fools?

 

[fess]

They were allegedly a lot of things except 'there'.

I am well-versed with the trusses, the dampers and the alleged concrete. They were more than just weight bearing trusses they, were designed to create a diaphram to withstand lateral wind shear equivalent to the impact of an ocean freighter. They kept the tower walls stiff and square. The trusses and concrete floors not damaged by the impact would have stayed-put. And before the big wall panels could have been pushed in like that, the three floors behind it had to have been removed.

I never took a class on structural engineering, but, I don’t have to be structural engineer to know that this is a pile of bunk.

You do know that the building would sway in a stiff wind… don’t you?

 

[yankee451]

No trusses? No wonder the floors weren’t there.

Still trying to hold onto the idea that the fuselage of an airliner is hollow? You didn’t learn much from your bush pilot buddies did you?

You do realize that it took 1/3rd of a second for the aircraft to obliterate the area where it impacted don’t you? That’s simple math that even you should be able to do. But yet you think desks should be piled up against the wall, and maybe a few employees sitting around having coffee. And you have the nerve to call other people fools?

Looks pretty hollow to me.

That 1/3 of a second won't mean much after the cockpit is wiped out on impact and the rest of the fuselage tube walls acting like a long cookie cutter of thin aluminum. You guys make it sound like the air in the cabin makes the jet a battering ram.


Hollow Inside

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mexico-city-jet-crash.png

Edited by LashL: 

Changed oversized image to link, as overly large images mess with the formatting of the thread.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-8H4/2137913/L/

It should have been going the speed of sound, that would have obliterated that blast barrier, eh?

Hollow and No Match Concrete.

 

[yankee451]

I never took a class on structural engineering, but, I don’t have to be structural engineer to know that this is a pile of bunk.

You do know that the building would sway in a stiff wind… don’t you?

They swayed 10 feet in the breeze. On very windy days they couldn't run the freight elevators because the cables would rub against the walls.

I'm referring to the floors around the impact point.

If you were tasked with faking a jet crash, wouldn't you prep the site?

 

[yankee451]

Authorities, or untrained eyewitnesses? Name the authorities who "started" these rumors.

Name the untrained witnesses able to create a police museum exhibit in the largest city in the country. I can also name a dozen or so newspaper and television accounts of the same hogwash.

You guys want to wave it all off as "too big" and someone would talk with a conspiracy of this size;, but to whom would they talk? You deny the proof right before your eyes. It's really quite simple; this is the big lie. Look around, the evidence is everywhere, just look at the last 11 years of bloodshed. This barbarism must stop, and it all begins with speaking the truth.

 

[yankee451]

I never took a class on structural engineering, but, I don’t have to be structural engineer to know that this is a pile of bunk.

You do know that the building would sway in a stiff wind… don’t you?

I have already said the building would sway, and it did according to the books I've ready, quite a bit.

What's your beef? You can't do your thinking until you have an expert tell you what to think? You can't envision what would happen to the hollow aluminum jet wing/fuselage if it struck an acre of laterally braced concrete sideways? It wouldn't look anything LIKE what the NIST/MIT/RMackey want you to think, that's for sure. That's why they didn't use a jet and in order to bend the colunns in, they had to remove some floors.

Maybe you should take a class, maybe then you could picture how few options they had for the destruction of these towers.

 

[yankee451]

I keep saying this,
Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625.

Oystein has kindly provided a summary of the article here.
If you want a full copy of the paper, send me your e-mail and I will send it to you.

I have already commented on the obviously sleazy-propaganda piece here.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf

Their language is ambiguous and emotional. They take up all the aluminum in the wing and roll it into a big ball of play-doh, but even though the large bulk of a wing's mass is between the fuselage and the engine, they redistributed it equally along the length of their model wing. They didn't model it like real a wing is constructed, they made a big, thick hollow machete for the sake of modeling ease. They then neglected to do the same favor for the exterior walls, once again modeling them as square boxes. They then say they can't calculate the truss system so they calculated it as a steel plate. Seriously, this passes as science? They began with a predetirmined destination and built a math problem as the vehicle to take them there.

They are lying.

 

[threadworm]

The trusses went wall to core.

The jet's fuselage was about 17 feet wide and after the cockpit was creamed against the steel the hollow tube of the fuselage and it's contents was hardly a battering ram, and even if it was it was only 17 feet wide. And hollow.

And 175 tonnes.

So not only does the hollow fuselage damage the dense steel (is it the air pressure inside the cabin that gives it density?), it also damages an area twice its diameter and wipes out three acres of concrete, even thought it woudn't have touched most of the trusses.

175 tonnes

There are no bodies hanging in the hole, no desks piled up, no filing cabinets or cubicles, no doors or office partitions, or any window coverings visible in the hole. Nothing but building and nothing that could be identified as a truss or a concrete floor slab.

It's dark in there. You can't see what's present any more than we can. Does everything disappear when you close your eyes? Does 175 tonnes of jet airliner travelling at high speed not suggest material might have been shoved a little inwards? Some of that building is floor - you've drawn lines using it.

It's remarkable how powerful your jet is, truly. It's amazing we spend a million dollars a pop on missiles when just a few 767s could have wiped out Tripoli.

175 tonnes.

Also, your claim about a lack of intense fire is pretty feeble when you look at the bigger picture. I was altering the levels on a higher res image to see if you could make out anything in the interior. The image I used contains slightly more than yours. I've deliberately left it level adjusted.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4082/adjustedpo.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed oversized image to link, as overly large images mess with the fomatting of the thread.

So yes, no evidence of fire, providing you crop out all of the smoke and flames. The red square is not mine, and is picking out what is claimed to be a woman.

Maybe all these people climbed up long ladders on cue, willing victims for the sacrifice. These are the people you are dishonouring with your crackpot nonsense.

 

[yankee451]

And 175 tonnes.



175 tonnes



It's dark in there. You can't see what's present any more than we can. Does everything disappear when you close your eyes? Does 175 tonnes of jet airliner travelling at high speed not suggest material might have been shoved a little inwards? Some of that building is floor - you've drawn lines using it.



175 tonnes.

Also, your claim about a lack of intense fire is pretty feeble when you look at the bigger picture. I was altering the levels on a higher res image to see if you could make out anything in the interior. The image I used contains slightly more than yours. I've deliberately left it level adjusted.

[qimg]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4082/adjustedpo.jpg[/qimg]

So yes, no evidence of fire, providing you crop out all of the smoke and flames. The red square is not mine, and is picking out what is claimed to be a woman.

Maybe all these people climbed up long ladders on cue, willing victims for the sacrifice. These are the people you are dishonouring with your crackpot nonsense.

[qimg]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01986/world-trade-center_1986818c.jpg[/qimg]

Maybe they pulled the 300 lb glass panes out with chewing gum.

 

[BangBang]

Just when you think Truthers couldn't get anymore disgusting. Besides that, you didn't address any of the post. Why not?

 

[Travis]

They were allegedly a lot of things except 'there'.

I am well-versed with the trusses, the dampers and the alleged concrete. They were more than just weight bearing trusses they, were designed to create a diaphram to withstand lateral wind shear equivalent to the impact of an ocean freighter. They kept the tower walls stiff and square. The trusses and concrete floors not damaged by the impact would have stayed-put. And before the big wall panels could have been pushed in like that, the three floors behind it had to have been removed.

Have you ever seen a picture of the floor trusses? If you had then you'd know they were not very substantial.

The FDNY were among those who gave us the molten steel:

You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava
Etienne Sauret - Documentary "Collateral Damages" - FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo

Hmm, that's interesting. Do you think that the FDNY has the experience and equipment necessary to tell if anything molten is, in fact, steel? Because there's a big difference and people often simply substitute "steel" as a colloquialism for "metal."

But, that's not really important. I once created a thread here where I asked for Truthers to explain why molten steel would be important. No one ever did this. Would you care to be the first?

Why would molten steel be important yankee451?

 

[Animal]

They were allegedly a lot of things except 'there'.

I am well-versed with the trusses, the dampers and the alleged concrete. They were more than just weight bearing trusses they, were designed to create a diaphram to withstand lateral wind shear equivalent to the impact of an ocean freighter. They kept the tower walls stiff and square. The trusses and concrete floors not damaged by the impact would have stayed-put. And before the big wall panels could have been pushed in like that, the three floors behind it had to have been removed.

If you were so "well versed" you would not post such drivel. (Wind shear = impact of ocean freighter...LMAO)
Towers stiff? LMAO

The FDNY were among those who gave us the molten steel:

So identify which member of the FDNY is trained in metallurgy.

All BS.

You claims......yes I agree, they are B.S.

 

[DGM]

So not only does the hollow fuselage damage the dense steel (is it the air pressure inside the cabin that gives it density?), it also damages an area twice its diameter and wipes out three acres of concrete, even thought it woudn't have touched most of the trusses.

Setting aside the obvious lie about the concrete. What the hell does this (bold) even mean?

Yes, the air does increase the density because it has mass, so it would also contribute to the momentum (along with everything else on the plane). Is this not obvious?

You ask the oddest things for someone that claims to understand physics.

 

[swright777]

Looks pretty hollow to me.

That 1/3 of a second won't mean much after the cockpit is wiped out on impact and the rest of the fuselage tube walls acting like a long cookie cutter of thin aluminum. You guys make it sound like the air in the cabin makes the jet a battering ram.


Hollow Inside

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mexico-city-jet-crash.png[/qimg]

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-8H4/2137913/L/

It should have been going the speed of sound, that would have obliterated that blast barrier, eh?

Hollow and No Match Concrete.

Either your eyes are broken or your definition of hollow and mine are different. The pictures you posted did not show a hollow fuselage. Don't you see all that stuff inside of it? Do you not know what hollow means?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Either your eyes are broken or your definition of hollow and mine are different. The pictures you posted did not show a hollow fuselage. Don't you see all that stuff inside of it? Do you not know what hollow means?

Steve won't see this as he has me on ignore, but I'll take a stab at it...


Hollow - empty; without contents; hence, without pith or substance; fruitless; worthless: as, a hollow victory; a hollow argument.

Example:

Steve's argument that missiles were used on 9/11 is a hollow argument.

 

[swright777]

Steve won't see this as he has me on ignore, but I'll take a stab at it...


Hollow - empty; without contents; hence, without pith or substance; fruitless; worthless: as, a hollow victory; a hollow argument.

Example:

Steve's argument that missiles were used on 9/11 is a hollow argument.

So that's why Steve keeps using that word. The fuselage and wings weren't hollow, his arguments were. I hope nobody ever mistakes me for him just because we share the same first name.

 

[yankee451]

Have you ever seen a picture of the floor trusses? If you had then you'd know they were not very substantial.



Hmm, that's interesting. Do you think that the FDNY has the experience and equipment necessary to tell if anything molten is, in fact, steel? Because there's a big difference and people often simply substitute "steel" as a colloquialism for "metal."

But, that's not really important. I once created a thread here where I asked for Truthers to explain why molten steel would be important. No one ever did this. Would you care to be the first?

Why would molten steel be important yankee451?

You are very willing to forgive people who began rumors that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The reason the molten steel lie is significant is because it isn't just an isolated indiscretion. When FEMA, NASA, the USGS, the FDNY and the NYPD as well as dozens of media outlets AND the ironically-named 9/11 Truth Movement ALL sing the same tune and that tune is a blatant lie, it takes a gigantic leap of faith to keep telling yourself it was all an accident.

Talk about a preponderence of evidence!